Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High court) Conclusion: No State can exercise its authority by making Rules in such a way to impact upon authority of other States to organise, conduct and promotion of lottery. That power is exclusively given to the Central Government. Therefore, State of Kerala […]
Tmt.T.A.H.Zubaida Ummal Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Where the mortgage had been created by the owner after he had acquired the property, the clearing of the mortgage by him prior to the transfer of the property would not entitle him to claim deduction under Section 48 because, in such a case he did not […]
The accused Srilankan Airlines was convicted for the offence u/s 26 of Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013 as the accused had violated Section 4 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act) 2013.
M.S. Meghdoot Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) Proper Officer was empowered to possess Confiscated Goods if option to pay Fine in addition to the tax payable, penalty and other charges was not exercised Conclusion: Where proper officer, who had detained the conveyance and seized the goods was able to form opinion that […]
Where assessee was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded therefore, assessee’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts could not be ruled out. Indeed, the Investigating Officer had interrogated the assessee twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court found itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody was required. Accordingly, the assessee’s bail application was dismissed on account of involvement of huge money laundering .
SC held that Ola and Uber did not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers as the drivers were independent individuals who acted independently of each other, therefore, section 3 of the CCI Act would not apply.
Assessee had no liability to pay service tax on the commission received in convertible foreign currency as the only requirement after the amendment in rule 3 (2) of the Export Service Rules 2005 was that the service recipient should be situated outside India and consideration should be received in foreign currency which both are satisfied.
Registration of FIR against assessee for offence under Section 56 of the Act of 2005 was bad, as no FIR for the said non-cognizable offence could be registered and for offence under Section 56, only complaint could be filed by the specified authority / person named in Section 60(a)/(b), that too cognizance can be taken by the jurisdictional criminal court only if previous sanction has already been granted by the competent authority under Section 59 of the Act of 2005.
Minimum guarantee amount which was paid by the distributor for acquiring the exhibition rights of a movie was a fixed expenditure for the distributor that was paid to producers irrespective of the fact whether the film generated a profit or incurs losses. Hence, the payments made by assessee did not fall under the term Royalty and did not attract the provisions of TDS.
Provision for software expenses could not be disallowed by considering it as contingent liability as assessee was required to make provision for all known liabilities and losses as per accounting standards prescribed by ICAI and also by the Central Government under the Income Tax Act even though the amount could not be determined with certainty.
